I've mentioned this before but does anyone have any opinions on whether Wu(hao) style isthe way in which Tai Chi in general is moving and progressing? Toward smaller, more precise, movements? Almost as if less is becoming more? The movements get smaller yet stil retain all the "energy", if you will. I mention progression because all things tend to progress toward some unknown called perfection or at the very least toward accomplishing to same thing easier and with less effort. Now I don't really have that good a handle on Wu(hao) although my last instructor, others in his class, and myself did work on it a bit, but his main focus was Yang long form. Still it would seem that Wu(hao), being one of the newer styles, is that step foward in the art of Tai Chi. The wave of the future, for lack of better words. Of course it's only where it's at because Wu Yu-Xiang stands on Chen and Yangs shoulders.

I am no expert...but don't you think that whether you're doing yang or wu/hao or chen etc you should train the applications with other practitioners and through that notice how you naturally change your tai chi to smaller?

Tung Ying Chieh studied first the Wu/Hao style ("the smaller style") and then went to learn Yang Cheng Fu's form.

caesar wrote:I am no expert...but don't you think that whether you're doing yang or wu/hao or chen etc you should train the applications with other practitioners and through that notice how you naturally change your tai chi to smaller?

Tung Ying Chieh studied first the Wu/Hao style ("the smaller style") and then went to learn Yang Cheng Fu's form.

My Yang has definately gotten smaller over the years. I guess I'm thinking that I consider Yang an advancement over Chen as Yang became a "softer" more yielding, possibly more effective style than Chen's more aggressive "harder" style. Wu(hao), to me, seems to have taken Yang a few more steps toward Tai Chi's logical conclusion which, to me, would seem to be toward less and less movement and almost a kind of nothingness, for lack of a better word. Maybe that sounds a little like fantasy but then again it doesn't take much movement to produce the so called4 ounces and move that 1000 pounds. I believe Tai Chi could evolve to this barely moving ideal.

pete wrote: I believe Tai Chi could evolve to this barely moving ideal.

You mean to... standing Qi Gong???

Oh dren.. you just used about 20 words that pete doesnt like... if taiji evolves to non-movement, then what do we have? Brer, you are correct! pete, you are correct! But what will happen if one doesnt believe in qigong or qi... ? I guess someone has wasted a lot of time!

pete wrote: I believe Tai Chi could evolve to this barely moving ideal.

You mean to... standing Qi Gong???

Oh dren.. you just used about 20 words that pete doesnt like... if taiji evolves to non-movement, then what do we have? Brer, you are correct! pete, you are correct! But what will happen if one doesnt believe in qigong or qi... ? I guess someone has wasted a lot of time!

I'm not thinking Qigong. I'm sort of thinking that the old 4 ounces of force doesn't require much movement to generate and that PROPERLY applied this 4 ounces can move 1000 pounds, or is it 4000? Strictly physics. Kind of brings up another question. Can a human train his sensitivity to a point that by simply touching someone he can discern that perfect place to apply 4 that ounces.If so then movement becomes almost non existant and barely required.

I always felt that styles other than Chen were modified fractions of the original. If your goal is to move 1000 lbs with 4 oz, then maybe less is more. If your goal is to become a competent fighter, or physically well, then they are missing some serious components.

adamfuray wrote:.............. If your goal is to move 1000 lbs with 4 oz, then maybe less is more. If your goal is to become a competent fighter, or physically well, then they are missing some serious components.

When you put it like that maybe my question is simply a question. I doubt I'll ever become a competent Tai Chi fighter. It's really hard to find someone who does much more than "the form" or Qigong. I have thought of learning Akido as a martial art as it seems to have a bit in common with Tai Chi. I don't really rely on Tai Chi to remain "physically well" as I don't believe it's physical enough to offer all that much in the way of "getting in shape". I guess if you were to ask me why I'm still, after all these years, fascinated by Tai Chi I wuld be hard pressed to come up with a good answer. Suffice it to say that it still peaks my interest and I still ask and analyze.

pete5770 wrote:I've mentioned this before but does anyone have any opinions on whether Wu(hao) style isthe way in which Tai Chi in general is moving and progressing? Toward smaller, more precise, movements? Almost as if less is becoming more? The movements get smaller yet stil retain all the "energy", if you will. I mention progression because all things tend to progress toward some unknown called perfection or at the very least toward accomplishing to same thing easier and with less effort. Now I don't really have that good a handle on Wu(hao) although my last instructor, others in his class, and myself did work on it a bit, but his main focus was Yang long form. Still it would seem that Wu(hao), being one of the newer styles, is that step foward in the art of Tai Chi. The wave of the future, for lack of better words. Of course it's only where it's at because Wu Yu-Xiang stands on Chen and Yangs shoulders.

I do not believe Wu2, Wu3, Yang, etc stands on Chens' shoulders since they have come into their own, with their own idiosyncracies. Doing smaller, precise, movements just to do it without any reference makes no sense but I do believe firmly that body size does influence the type of taijiquan practiced. I could not see Yang Chengfu doing taijiquan within a Sun framework though in some 'older' Yang style, I do see people using the Sun (from Wu/Hao) framework in stepping and movement usage. Actually East Mountain, a new synthesized taiji, of Men Huifeng is a good example!

adamfuray wrote:I always felt that styles other than Chen were modified fractions of the original. If your goal is to move 1000 lbs with 4 oz, then maybe less is more. If your goal is to become a competent fighter, or physically well, then they are missing some serious components.

How long has "always" been? What are your conclusions based on?

Thanks for clarifying, because, as i understand that classic, if you dont use it, you are not a "competant fighter.

pete5770 wrote:I've mentioned this before but does anyone have any opinions on whether Wu(hao) style isthe way in which Tai Chi in general is moving and progressing? Toward smaller, more precise, movements? Almost as if less is becoming more? The movements get smaller yet stil retain all the "energy", if you will. I mention progression because all things tend to progress toward some unknown called perfection or at the very least toward accomplishing to same thing easier and with less effort. Now I don't really have that good a handle on Wu(hao) although my last instructor, others in his class, and myself did work on it a bit, but his main focus was Yang long form. Still it would seem that Wu(hao), being one of the newer styles, is that step foward in the art of Tai Chi. The wave of the future, for lack of better words. Of course it's only where it's at because Wu Yu-Xiang stands on Chen and Yangs shoulders.

I do not believe Wu2, Wu3, Yang, etc stands on Chens' shoulders since they have come into their own, with their own idiosyncracies. Doing smaller, precise, movements just to do it without any reference makes no sense but I do believe firmly that body size does influence the type of taijiquan practiced. I could not see Yang Chengfu doing taijiquan within a Sun framework though in some 'older' Yang style, I do see people using the Sun (from Wu/Hao) framework in stepping and movement usage. Actually East Mountain, a new synthesized taiji, of Men Huifeng is a good example!

I'm going to have to disagree with you on the standing on shoulders thing. I believe that I am better at structural steel engineering and detailing because "I stand on the shoulders" of men and women who came before me and taught me what they knew so that perhaps I could somehow help to improve, make easier, and streamline things for the next generation. Maybe I even did, as I was one of the first to use computerized drafting where as all of my predecesors(and even myself, in earlier years) used paper. Nowdays pencil to paper drafting / drawing on paper is hardly ever done. I'm sure that something from Chen had an impact on other styles of Tai Chi and even on other forms of martial arts. So, yes, we are all "standing on.......".

As to certain body sizes and types being better and or more efficient at certain styles I'd like to hear more from you on that subject. Sounds interesting.

outside observation only. I have never practiced anything other than the Chen style old frame, so I probably overstepped my bounds with that comment. BUT....I have seen the majority of the popular forms executed in real life, and It looked like a lot of footwork, leaping, stomps etc. were absent from Yang 108, Wu, and Sun. Not to mention everything was slow! (fajin should always be fast). Tailbones weren't tucked, 98%+ of the postures were executed standing almost completely upright etc. I saw a form that the instructor called "lee's modified Yang style", and felt the same. Never heard of it before or after that meeting though.

adamfuray wrote:outside observation only. I have never practiced anything other than the Chen style old frame, so I probably overstepped my bounds with that comment. BUT....I have seen the majority of the popular forms executed in real life, and It looked like a lot of footwork, leaping, stomps etc. were absent from Yang 108, Wu, and Sun. Not to mention everything was slow! (fajin should always be fast). Tailbones weren't tucked, 98%+ of the postures were executed standing almost completely upright etc. I saw a form that the instructor called "lee's modified Yang style", and felt the same. Never heard of it before or after that meeting though.

I think Chen is something of a "hard" style. In conversation I have heard a few instructors mention that maybe Chen isn't Tai Chi, due to this "hardness", although that sounds a bit much. Yes, leaping and stomps are not really a part of Yang or Wu. As for seeing "Lee's modified style" I'm going to guess that the instructor was named Lee and felt that he somewhat jokingly called it after himself. My last instructor was not really big on tradition and even though Yang Diagonal Flying has no move to the left(only right) he added a Wu Diagonal Flying left into it because he felt it worked well with the transition to the next stance. He even added a move of his own called Serve a Peach to Buddha. It's just like White Snake Spits Poison only facing left with the left arm and leg forward. I still do Yang long form his way with these, and a few other, glitches and bumps(if you will), that he liked doing. Ya see a lot of different things out there. As you do more and more you tend to question the whys and wherefors of everything and your Tai Chi tends to evolve towards better and better.

adamfuray wrote:outside observation only. I have never practiced anything other than the Chen style old frame, so I probably overstepped my bounds with that comment. BUT....I have seen the majority of the popular forms executed in real life, and It looked like a lot of footwork, leaping, stomps etc. were absent from Yang 108, Wu, and Sun. Not to mention everything was slow! (fajin should always be fast). Tailbones weren't tucked, 98%+ of the postures were executed standing almost completely upright etc. I saw a form that the instructor called "lee's modified Yang style", and felt the same. Never heard of it before or after that meeting though.

I asked becasue, while Yang and Chen share SOME postures, there are major differences that are hard to ignore.

I choose to look at it in historical perspective (and I know some of you will question this, and add there 2 cents, but it wont change my mind!), as YES, luchan was at Chen village. Yes, Luchan learned the Chen forms. I aslo believe that a man named Chiang Fa came to the village at the same time as luchan. He was an old "wudang" master. I believe that luchan, recognizing Chen as a family art, left with Chiang Fa, as he realized that there was more to it than in Chen (yes, I got that from Erle! It works with the rest of the art).

Chen just does not have the looseness that Yang has (no, i do not refer to what you have seen! I agree, 95%++ of Yang is shiznit!). I love Erle's idea of LOOSE BOXiNG (and yes, there are references to that outside of Erle's work, with respect to Luchan's art).

It is amazing how people see only as far as they want to, and stop looking. I did it for a long time. People have claimed that Erle 'invented' his wudang experience, and created his story of meeting his teacher. I find that laughable. Paul Brecher, a former WTBA student, went to China, to where Luchan lived (there is video of luchan's home, etc). He shared some of the forms that Erle taught, that he claimed came from wudang, and, lo and behold, how did these Chinese, with no contact with Erle, recognize them as Neija? Of course, there is much more to it than that, but the forms relate MORE to Old Yang than to Chen, so, maybe, there is truth to it.

As to fajin, I have only seen video of it from Chen, but it looks like shaolin to me. The "one strike one kill" idea. It is most definitely not loose. Would I want to be hit by a Chen? NO! LOL IT is just a different expression that I can see no correlation to in Yang. Yang taiji is ONE MOVEMENT! There are no "postures" per se, which I havent seen in Chen, but who knows. i have been wrong before (ask my wife).

Lee's modified, if it is the same, is a very small frame form? A senior of mine spent a lot of time with that art (if it is the same), so I have no ideas on it, other than there must be something to it. He teaches Yang taiji so, take that for what its worth.

what exactly is it about Chen Taiji that makes people say it is too hard? It is mostly fast, (only 2 out of the 11 or so forms is slow), with lots of striking, qinna, kicks etc, but it is taught and ideally executed with relaxation of every part of the body (not limpness, as most practitioners seem to think "softness" implies). Do they mean it looks like an external martial art? This is silly, as all Chen training emphasises "silk reeling" as a means of power generation, and all energy is distributed by the dan tien. Is the choreography similar to Shaolin? absolutely, but that surface, superficial feature is where the similarity ends. Hey, they are good moves! I'm not at all disturbed that they were borrowed

wpgtaiji wrote: aslo believe that a man named Chiang Fa came to the village at the same time as luchan. He was an old "wudang" master. I believe that luchan, recognizing Chen as a family art, left with Chiang Fa, as he realized that there was more to it than in Chen (yes, I got that from Erle! It works with the rest of the art).

I thought I was quite clear that that was what I BELIEVED, from what I have read (from many sources) and found from the examinations I have done. I never claimed it was perfect. Since YOU adam, feel you have to down play it, the burden falls on YOU to show emperical evidence. I dont really care however, since i am well past the age of having to worry about history! In fact, i never really cared about history, unlike some who seem to live on it (i always thought that living for the past made no real sense, but again, that is me).

As to why Chen is not taiji, mate, you have to go back into that past you love so much and ask the old Yang masters why they said that! I admit, I am just regurgitating from them! Ask them, why the Taiji masters had a meeting to discuss the future of Taiji, yet NOT ONE chen master was invited. Mate, I wasnt there, so you have to check with them.

I can maybe give an insight, based on the history. As I understand things, Taiji REFERING TO A MARTIAL ART, dates to the WU family, students of Luchan. This COULD mean that WU was refering to LUCHAN's art, when he used Taiji, not Chen. So, technically speaking, chen isnt taiji. If we use the logic, well chen begot yang, then, shaolin begot chen, so that means Shaolin is Taiji too.. see, going back confuses things. I like SIMPLE!

Maybe another reason, and my understanding of Chen is not as large as yours, Taiji is ONE MOVEMENT (you missed that above, choosing the other stuff for some reason). That means that ALL of taiji is ONE MOVEMENT or ONE QI! From what I see of chen on video, i dont see ONE QI. I see start stop, like so many other arts. Now, Yang, as 99% do it is exactly that because ONE QI is not easy. I havent seen a chen master do it. I have seen Yang teachers do it. So how can one come from another?

Mate, if you have the answers, by all means. I doubt it though. And i am not looking to be convinced (nothing you could write on a forum could do that). This is a place for discussion, not proving. I dont know why folks forget this. Pete, you are my new Internet forum Idol! Sorry, the role pays nothing, and it is a small group (me, for a short time - i have a short attention span), but its here!

I often look to this forum to stay connected with YMAA and for some news on Taijiquan and Kung Fu - observations from fellow friends, tips, and possibly even encouragment from senior students on how to stay on the way. Lately I've found the conversation to be very disheartening in nature, revolving around petty arguments and insults.

Also, the same arguments over and over again... and less than six members participating in these arguments!

I like to see new posts - it's exciting to see recent activity - but it's also ok to have a question hanging in the air for a while.

Let's keep the conversation with an eye to constantly improving ourselves through martial arts.